If the Ten Commandments say that bearing false witness and killing are sinful, then starting a war based on false pretenses (non-existent WMD) must be a very great sin indeed. Pope John Paul II warned the Bush administration not to invade Iraq. Other prominent religious officials were against it also. But most Americans only pay attention to the pope and other religious figures when they say something agreeable.

Far too many of America's religious leaders were uncritical boosters of the war. Oddly enough, the same ones who want the Ten Commandments posted in public buildings are the ones who are the most belligerent and least willing to admit America might have done anything wrong. I believe they've confused their loyalty to the USA with their faith in God. If those were the same thing, then why would we need God?

zionist feminazi? awww... how nice.

Great, now the zionist feminazis are weighing in...

Demetri's article should be spread all over this country. We, as a nation, seem unable to take a good look at ourselves in the interest of doing unto others as we would want others to do unto us. And we do love power, along with our greed and sloth.
Philosophers and psychologists, scientists, are saying that there is a change in consciousness happening. The current such change that I have observed in my 84 years is that of our shift to the side of corruption and lethargy, arrogance, everything Demetri said and maybe more. A rabbi suggested that we instigate a day of Atonement and ask for forgiveness for our sins and begin the process of restitution and change. Ha! Fat Chance
We gave a lot of time and print space to apologizing to the blacks for having kept them slaves. But have you heard about what is going on in Jena, Louisana. We get worse, not better. I ask myself what will happen; I probably am too old to see the outcome of all this. And that's probably just as well.

First of all I want to say that it makes me happy to read all of this intelligent discourse. It goes to show that there is indeed "questioning of imperial notions and goals" and to think otherwise is to underestimate us.

So, this doesn't have anything to do with the Rome thing, I just have to say that yes, they DEFINITELY hate us because we are free, not just because of our meddlesome ways. I cannot believe that anyone would think otherwise.

Western feminists duly fight in their home countries for equal pay and opportunity, but seemingly ignore, under a façade of cultural relativism, that large numbers of women in the Islamic world live under threat of beating, execution and genital mutilation, or cannot vote, drive cars and dress as they please.

So many people believe that Islamic extremism is caused by the Arab-Israeli conflict. If this is the case, what does the Islamist murder of over 150,000 innocent people in Algeria--which happened in the last few decades--or their slaying of hundreds of Buddhists in Thailand, or the ethnic cleansing in Sudan, or the brutal violence between Sunni and Shia in Iraq have to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict?

Progressives need to realize that radical Islam is based on an antiliberal system. They need to awaken to the inhumane policies and practices of Islamists around the world. They need to realize that Islamism spells the death of liberal values. And they must not take for granted the respect for human rights and dignity that we experience in America, and indeed, the West, today.

We blame ourselves for the Islamist rage, in the hope that our admission of guilt will pacify our enemies. What about taking a stand?

THomas Paine,

It is intresting you chose the author of the famous pamphlet "common Sense" as a screen name, because the way you deny common sense and pretend that the intentions and moral culpability of an IDF pilot and Osama Bin Laden are exactly the same.

I hate getting into these discussions with leftists, who pretend not to know the difference between those who target a terrorist who hides in an apartment building, and a terrorist who deliberately targets a bus full of civilians with no other purpose except to kill, wound, and terrorize the civilian population. Either you are deliberately pretending not to know right from wrong, or you really are that dumb, but here are some important differences based on the Israel and US WW 2 examples you gave.

1. Muslim terrorists target a bus full of civilians and kill them. The civilians deaths are not accidental, incidental, or collateral, they are intended. For Islamic terrorists killing civilians is not a regretable by product to "resisting the occupier". Killing civilians precisely the point. (stop me if I am going to fast here)

2. An Israeli F-16 that knows a terrorist is in an apartment building, has 2 choices:

A. Dont bomb it and wait for that terrorist to kill Israeli innocents.

B. Bomb and kill the terrorist, but in the action accidentally kill the terrorist.

In WW II the allies destroyed the German Luftwaffe mostly on the ground by bombing key infrastructure that unfortunately was located in cities.

NOW FOR OUR END OF CHAPTER REVIEW. PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS BELOW HONESTLY.

1. If Israel and the US's moral ethos called for killing innocent civilians, then why does Hamas hide behind innocent civilians? Could it be that even the terrorists acknowledge what you refuse to, that America and Israel would rather bomb military targets instead of terrorizing civilians?

2. Who is more likely to be seen on TV sawing an innocent civilians head off from the neck?

A. US
B. Israel
C. Hamas, Al Quaeda, Fatah, etc.?

3. Whose tactics include the intentional targeting of innocents such that maximizing the civilian body count is the point of the attack, instead of merely an unfortunate by product of trying to kill an enemy who uses his own neighbors as human shields?

A. US
B. Israel
C. Hamas, Al Quaeda, Fatah, etc.

LET'S NOT FOOL OURSELVES AND TURN A BLIND EYE TO THE REAL CAUSE OF ALL THIS HAVOC IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND IN THE WHOLE WORLD.IT'S THE CREATION OF THE ILLEGAL STATE OF ISRAEL ON THE RUINS OF PALESTINE.THIS IS THE STEM CELL THAT HAS BEEN BREEDING ALL CHAOS AND TERROR WORLDWIDE.UNLESS THIS ISSUE IS HANDLED ADEQUATELY AND ALL PALESTINIAN REFUGEES RETURN HOME,WE WILL BE FOOLING OURSELVES AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO FIGHT INVISIBLE GHOSTS THAT WE CALL TERRORISTS

Speed123,

The concern is that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program. Having said that, the dispute can and should be resolved diplomatically. However, to achieve a breakthrough, the U.S. and Iran will both have to make some concessions e.g., the U.S. would bar the threat of "regime change" and offer a path for normalization in exchange for Iran's agreeing to limit itself to a peaceful nuclear program subject to a rigorous verification regime. Reciprocity will be key to diplomatic success. "Something for nothing" will likely lead to diplomatic failure.

The neoconservatives e.g., John Bolton, believe diplomacy has already failed. In reality, the kind of direct bilateral talks that will be needed have not yet been undertaken. Hence, diplomacy hasn't even been given a reasonable chance just yet.

Funny how the neo cons and the "liberal" media are even now pushing for regime change and preemptive war with Iran (which poses no threat to us)....

Also funny that none of the candidate promise to refuse a preemptive nuclear strike on Iran (including Hillary, Obama and Rudy McRomney) EXCEPT Ron Paul.

Congress with mediate the foreign policy of Ron Paul once he wins...and since there is no major foreign threats out there, it is a good time to clean house, reduce bases, balance our budget, and restore the constitutional rights eroded under Bush and the neo cons.

We are a REPUBLIC not an EMPIRE....google Ron Paul

Liberals are the dumbest people on Earth. Its no surprise why terrorists attacked NYC, a liberal city. They knew that they wouldn't fight back. Instead they would just beg for more.

ANNO:

yes they hate us because we are free. look at what islam demands. we are free to ignore that.

Speed123,

In the run-up to World War II, the U.S. had embraced isolationism. Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. wrote:

"Isolationism set the terms of foreign policy debate. Franklin D. Roosevelt had no illusions about the threats to peace posed by Nazi Germany and imperial Japan... [H]e could not, for all his popularity control an isolationist Congress when it came to foreign policy. Congress...passed rigid neutrality legislation that, by denying the president authority to discriminate between aggressor and victim, nullified any American role in restraining aggression. In sum, it put American foreign policy in a straitjacket during the critical years before World War II."

Today, the U.S. suffers from reduced worldwide support on account of the excesses of the Neoconservatism. The Neoconservatives embraced unilateralism and made it a mission of the U.S. military to pursue idealistic ends. Congressman Paul, rather than taking a more restrained approach, seeks to take the opposite extreme in promoting neo-isolationism.

Should the U.S. dictate the political outcomes of all nations?

Absolutely not. However, it should be prepared to intervene via diplomacy, assistance, and only, if necessary, militarily to safeguard its critical overseas interests. In my opinion, recent military interventions that were justified were those to liberate Kuwait (ally and access to oil) and to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan (government sheltering Al Qaeda who attacked the U.S.). Some recent military interventions that fell short included those that took place in Haiti (no major U.S. interests were involved) and, most recently, Iraq (no imminent threat was posed). It should also work through its partnership with NATO to help maintain stability in Europe. It should not pursue a policy of "regime change" in order to promote democracy. Democracy is a function of economic, political, and legal institutions. Therefore, "regime change" won't achieve it.

PS - Don,

Do you think we should dictate the political outcomes for all foreign nations?

Should we have policies everywhere that tip the scales to favor our interests? i.e. "the interests of humanity" ha!

Our federal government cannot even rebuild our historic New Orleans after a major storm.....how do you think that they will be able to effectively nation build and direct the affairs of the world competently??

You are not a conservative, are you?

It is time to tame the corrupt and incompetent federal government.

Time to restore the constitution and the powers given to the states and people.

Time to google Ron Paul!

Don,

Can you think of a time where we have been more isolated that we are now??? And how many military bases do we currently have around the world???

Come on, I am no historian; however, American foreign policy was NOT isolationist between wars.

The rise of national socialism was the result of Versailles, the economic depression AND as a reactionary force against the advent of the radical Bolshevik revolution in Russia.

Blaming American "isolationism" is simply a scare tactic used by those who wish us to support regimes or particular religious groups around the world.

War does not end war, it promotes it.

Ron Paul promotes trade and peace with all nations - this is a policy that ends wars as opposed to starting them without just cause.

Jefferson: "peace, trade and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with NONE!

Empires, like all human institutions and superstructures, exist only within the cloud of tacitly agreed upon assumptions and conditional truths. We, as citizens of the United States, accept the legitimacy of our government and thus hold its existence and power as a self-evident truth. In fact, very few people in this country could even conceive of challenging the authority and legitimacy of our domestic political and economic order, in any practical sense that is. Nations that rule empires, such as the United States and its institutions, face a greater challenge than local governments in that they have a much more difficult time justifying their positions as legitimate sources of power and order, primarily because of their finite political reach. In order for empires to survive they must be able to maintain the support of their clients and marginalize the voices of their challengers so as to keep faith in the system intact. Once members of the international order, specifically nations since they are still the most dominant and legitimate form of societal organization, begin to doubt either the legitimacy of the empire or its sustainability, the edifice of presupposed expectations and truths regarding the existential viability of the empire begin to crumble.
So the question then is not whether or not America is an empire but whether or not the nations and institutions whose support for American empire is crucial to its very existence, still believe in its legitimacy and sustainability. There is no question that the current international and financial order is dominated by American institutions and held together by the glue of deference to American primacy. Thus, it would be fair to say that American empire is certainly a reality. That being said however, it would also be fair to say that confidence in the sustainability of American empire is quickly eroding. Other nations, international institutions, and private investors are beginning to more openly question the sustainability of American empire, and even America itself is beginning to willingly loosen its grips on certain parts of its empire in the expectation that it will be unable to manage its collective security and order in the near future (we see this willingness to move towards a more multi-polar world in current American policy towards Asia). This breaks with the current administration’s actions in Iraq and Afghanistan and its clear unilateral attempts at strengthening its imperial grip on the Middle East and central Asia. This sort of schizophrenic foreign policy is certainly alarming and it suggests that there is still no clear consensus among policy elites both within this country and in others about what the future of our world’s political structure should and ultimately will look like. This growing loss of confidence by members of the imperial community is justified. Although America’s military power, the traditional source of imperial legitimacy, is far greater than that of any other member of the international community, its application no longer holds the same persuasive value that it did just 15 years ago. All of this country’s military might cannot solve the instability that it has created in Iraq, and this has become plainly obvious to both its clients and its challengers. In addition, America has become completely dependent upon the maintenance of the empire itself in order to sustain the financial viability of its economy and thus the continued tacit support for its policies by its own body politic – the ultimate source of imperial legitimacy within a democratic society. The current petrodollar regime and the long-time willingness of emerging Asian countries to invest in American assets and to purchase American bonds is being challenged. Without the continued willingness of imperial clients to support the dollar indefinitely, the United States, and much of the world, would suffer an economic catastrophe the likes of which we may have never seen before.
With the exception of states that are currently marginalized and/or punished within the framework of our current imperial order – Iran, North Korea, and to a lesser degree Russia to name a few – the remaining members potentially have much to lose from American withdrawal before a legitimate replacement for the current international regime (a.k.a. American empire and all of its institutions) is established. Therefore, it is imperative that the next American administration moves quickly towards re-establishing trust in American leadership, for the time being, and work together with other members of the international community to lay the groundwork for what is sure to be a multi-polar 21st century. However, even an administration that re-establishes trust and cooperation within the current international system will face significant challenges that could ultimately lead to catastrophic armed conflict in the years to come – mainly the combined challenges of dwindling carbon-based energy supplies and global climate change, and the emergence of non-state actors capable of eroding the very confidence of the nation state itself as a legitimate provider of security and economic opportunity for society. Ultimately, I do not believe that any of these problems can be solved unless the body politic of the United States awakens from its slumber and demands that a serious political dialogue be initiated within this country to address these urgent and vital issues. American politicians are far too short sighted to act beyond their own self-interests, and if we as a people do not rise up and use the democratic institutions of government to demand real and immediate change in the fundamental and existential challenges that face our world today, we may not have much of a world to look forward to.

The fact that the Cold War is over and Iran does not currently possess nuclear weapons does not mean that the U.S. should swing to the neo-isolationism espoused by Congressman Paul. History suggests that such a development could have tragic results.

Prior to World War II, U.S. isolationism provided no security or safety. It only created a global power vacuum in which Nazi Germany was able to alter the balance of power in its favor. Today, with the outcome of that isolationist period known from the annals of history, here is no good reason to roll the dice and return to the kind of policy that proved so disastrous in the past.

youre an idiot and I am sure you believe that they "hate us because we are free"

time to reevaluate our foreign policy and adjust commitments so that they are beneficial to Americans as opposed to dictators and special interests lobbies such as AIPAC.

The cold war is over! Iran etc are third world countries with no air force, nukes or navy!

Time to think!

Vote Ron Paul 2008

Time for a positive post and gives humanity hope:

Ron Paul 2008!

War on terror is like war on ghosts that we can neither see nor feel around. How can anybody win a war against such an enemy who can appear only when he decides to strike,who can be near you all the time without knowing it,who can be with you in the street,on the train,on the bus,on the flight,even near your house,school or garden.Let's be honest about it. This is not a conventional war that we used to know.Even with the most powerful neuclear weapons,we simply cannot win such a war.However,this doesn't mean that we have to give up or surrender to the enemy.We can simply eradicate all terrorists and terrorism by eliminating the major cause behind it.The illegal creation of Israel on the ruins of Palestine is the stem cell that has been breeding all chaos and trerror in the Middle East and in the whole world.Palestinians,being moslems or christians,were kicked out of their country to be replaced by jews from Europe,Ethiopia,Russia,Poland etc.
Unless the Palestinian issue is settled in a fair way to all concerned parties and unless all Palestinian refugees return home under UN resolutions, we will continue to fight ghosts for many years to come.

War on terror is like war on ghosts that we can neither see nor feel around. How can anybody win a war against such an enemy who can appear only when he decides to strike,who can be near you all the time without knowing it,who can be with you in the street,on the train,on the bus,on the flight,even near your house,school or garden.Let's be honest about it. This is not a conventional war that we used to know.Even with the most powerful neuclear weapons,we simply cannot win such a war.However,this doesn't mean that we have to give up or surrender to the enemy.We can simply eradicate all terrorists and terrorism by eliminating the major cause behind it.The illegal creation of Israel on the ruins of Palestine is the stem cell that has been breeding all chaos and trerror in the Middle East and in the whole world.Palestinians,being moslems or christians,were kicked out of their country to be replaced by jews from Europe,Ethiopia,Russia,Poland etc.
Unless the Palestinian issue is settled in a fair way to all concerned parties and unless all Palestinian refugees return home under UN resolutions, we will continue to fight ghosts for many years to come.

War on terror is like war on ghosts that we can neither see nor feel around. How can anybody win a war against such an enemy who can appear only when he decides to strike,who can be near you all the time without knowing it,who can be with you in the street,on the train,on the bus,on the flight,even near your house,school or garden.Let's be honest about it. This is not a conventional war that we used to know.Even with the most powerful neuclear weapons,we simply cannot win such a war.However,this doesn't mean that we have to give up or surrender to the enemy.We can simply eradicate all terrorists and terrorism by eliminating the major cause behind it.The illegal creation of Israel on the ruins of Palestine is the stem cell that has been breeding all chaos and trerror in the Middle East and in the whole world.Palestinians,being moslems or christians,were kicked out of their country to be replaced by jews from Europe,Ethiopia,Russia,Poland etc.
Unless the Palestinian issue is settled in a fair way to all concerned parties and unless all Palestinian refugees return home under UN resolutions, we will continue to fight ghosts for many years to come.

War on terror is like war on ghosts that we can neither see nor feel around. How can anybody win a war against such an enemy who can appear only when he decides to strike,who can be near you all the time without knowing it,who can be with you in the street,on the train,on the bus,on the flight,even near your house,school or garden.Let's be honest about it. This is not a conventional war that we used to know.Even with the most powerful neuclear weapons,we simply cannot win such a war.However,this doesn't mean that we have to give up or surrender to the enemy.We can simply eradicate all terrorists and terrorism by eliminating the major cause behind it.The illegal creation of Israel on the ruins of Palestine is the stem cell that has been breeding all chaos and trerror in the Middle East and in the whole world.Palestinians,being moslems or christians,were kicked out of their country to be replaced by jews from Europe,Ethiopia,Russia,Poland etc.
Unless the Palestinian issue is settled in a fair way to all concerned parties and unless all Palestinian refugees return home under UN resolutions, we will continue to fight ghosts for many years to come.

Frank Colins is a one-trick hate pony.

Take back the country from the think tanks, elite and corporate interests...................

Google Ron Paul 2008

Collins, very good post and well documented. Congratulations.
(Except by the reference to the book "I am OK, you are OK". Transactional analysis and emotional literacy would do a lot for most of us and our misunderstandings)

Wat (if you're still reading), I had to go to Google to find this out, but apparently, Murphy is Cullen Murphy, author of the recently published "Are We Rome?: the fall of an empire and the fate of America".

Kudos to Demetri and to you, and to all the other intelligent, aware people pointing out the truths Andoni is speaking that don't fit into our national "America Can Do Nothing Evil, Islamobrownfolks Can Do Nothing Else" narrative.

I have known America and Americans for a long time, I have studied with them, I have travelled and had fun with them, I have worked for and with them, etc.
I can never say "Americans" and encompass in the term what I would call the two America´s that I know: one, a cultured and responsible people, the other, an unthinking biggoted mass of consumers. Unfortunately, the US government has been capable of ignoring the first group and supported by the second group, which it - itself leads, has acted contrary to the original ideals of their founding members.
And its present behaviour is nothing new, US of A, founded on the principles of people searching for freedom, was fed and enlarged by people searching to grab land and later by people searching for the American Dream: A Golden Cadillac. Young man go West, lots of land to grab, when finished, grab Mexico´s land, Hawaii, Phillipines, Panamá,Cuba (...Wait, too many people there, they will become citizens and have rights, don't grab the land, just control it!), later it gets in the European war of 1914 and catches the control of the Middle East oil.
Not amazingly, to the cheers of the unthinking group, who only rise to oppose the war when the number of American casualties gets to be significant in their cities and towns, never mind when the number of victims on the other side is a hundred times larger, they are not americans.

There are at least two Americas in the population of the USA today. The empire America and the working America.

The state of American people as a whole can be understood by the interplay of those two entity, the Empire part is providing essential material and incentives for the working part to do its job.

First it's money. Money or the USD is the incentive for most Americans to work, pay the bills for food, oil, housing, education and health care. Basic things.

When the value of the USD is in decline, the empire part has to invade another big oil reserve: Iraq in more aggressive manner than the silent invasion of Saudi Arabia. As to food it's abandon in America, housing is not a big matter because that relies only on low-paid jobs, can be done by out-of-the-system immigrant from Mexico or others that may not be entitled to health care or good education.

You can see the move of the administration as attempt to mediate the two Americas so as the outcome maybe acceptable to most of Americans.

It would be more problematic when the Empire part of American no longer can convince the working part to work because of the obvious low value of the USD. As of now, the USD is a global value own by most foreign banks as foreign exchange reserves, thus the question here is as always : Do you believe in America Empire or not ?

If the foreign creditors still willing to accept the promises of American Empire, then, yes, the American Empire will continue to expand. But when those creditors start to see the sign of a weaken empire and see a chance to assert themselves, then America will suffer heavily.

The recent assertion of Russia could be seen as a sign of such assertiveness. But it remains to be seen how China, Japan, EU which are the biggest financial players would react.

It's highly probable that all of them would still accept the role of America as the needed cop in town.

LET'S NOT FOOL OURSELVES AND TURN A BLIND EYE TO THE REAL CAUSE OF ALL THIS HAVOC IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND IN THE WHOLE WORLD.IT'S THE CREATION OF THE ILLEGAL STATE OF ISRAEL ON THE RUINS OF PALESTINE.THIS IS THE STEM CELL THAT HAS BEEM BREEDING ALL CHAOS AND TERROR WORLDWIDE.UNLESS THIS ISSUE IS HANDLED ADEQUATELY AND ALL PALESTINIAN REFUGEES RETURN HOME,WE WILL BE FOOLING OURSELVES AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO FIGHT INVISIBLE GHOSTS THAT WE CALL TERRORISTS.

Don,

Further to Silence Dogwood's post, the Brits at least had the decency to tell part of the truth about Usama Bin Laden. The American media have been completely silent of the role our beloved government agencies and the military have had in ensuring Usama's rise to stardom.

It was an unholy pact between the US (supply of arms & training), the Saudis (supply the money) & the Pakistanis (supply the bases to house the Mujahideens). The ultimate con was that the Afghans were told that the 'godless commies' were a threat to Islam and the ME. What most Americans really don't understand is that the Saudis added one very important demand to their signing on. Their brand of Islam (Wahabism) would be taught to the Mujahideen and the displaced refugees from Afghanistan.

Its very easy to sit in the convenience of nice, comfortable American homes and talk. Think of the remote Hindu Kush mountain ranges, the bleak, harsh winters, the blistering summers. Think of spending 6+ years fighting the Soviets, where every single day could be your last. Think of praying and thinking Wahabi style everyday. It goes a long way in creating people with very bleak, hardened souls. The Mujahideen became a pretty unforgiving people and very, very hard to kill.

After the Soviets withdrew, the Americans walked away leaving the Pakistanis, the Mujahideen & Saudis to do as they pleased. The results were appalling and of course, since it did not directly affect American economic interests, they simply ignored it.

The ISI ensured that the opium warlords were in charge of Afghanistan. The Pakistani military generals with the billions of USD siphoned off the generous Saudi 'aid' setup huge processing centers along the Pak-Afghan border; processing Afghan opium into grade A heroin which they shipped to Europe and America. Everyone became filthy, stinking rich. Life was good.

Ol' Usama went back to Saudi Arabia and was welcomed as a hero. Having switched to a purely religious way of life, looking around, he saw that the rulers of the country, who were the caretakers of the Kaaba and where the official religion was strict Wahabism, were actually doing everything which they were not supposed to be doing. Plus, they had their good buddies, the Americans, walking around like they owned the land.

He tried to bring in change and started by discussing with the local elders, then started preaching in the mosques. For his troubles, he was targeted by the Saudis & the Americans; to be terminated with extreme prejudice. He obviously had learnt well the lessons the US Special Forces taught him. He survived and took his fight forward. In his opinion and the opinion of at least a few billion people in this world, the Saudi monarchy was in power solely because of America's support. Duh! FDR guaranteed it and it has been a pretty enduring guarantee. It isn't called ARAMCO for nothing. Hence, his strike at America.

He hoped that most of the hijackers being Saudis, would make the American government strike out at the Saudi monarchy and the Saudi people would be freed. Unfortunately, that did not happen. Blood is thicker than water, and oil is definitely thicker than both. :-)

As a side tragedy to the monumental screw up by the Americans in Pakistan, the ISI now had an army of battle hardened, expert killers to utilize as they saw fit. Net result, 75K+ Kashmiris are dead and 2+ million Kashmiris have become refugees in their own country. The Indians are more than capable of taking out the training camps of the terrorists. No prizes for guessing who has stopped them these past 18 years; The American government. We need the Pakis to produce the nut cases (result of the Wahabi madrassas created with Saudi aid) who we can parade before our gullible public as the reason to start the War on Terror.

The economic benefits of a war are profound. Check the facts on the billions the military contractors have made since 9/11. Our economy is booming.

I think we really need to create a strategy that will marginalize Usama and future Usamas. Invading Iraq for their oil, killing 100K+ innocent Iraqi civilians and blithely referring to them as 'collateral damage' is not conducive. We need to change our thinking.

Lamis Andoni,

You represent a channel which is owned by a clan-based monarchy. And you have the temerity preaching America about values???

Listen, you guys in Qatar cannot even dream of reaching the level of sophistication which existed in ancient Rome. Unlike Qatar, Rome was actually a republic at some point.

There may be many things wrong with today's America. But you, Lamis Andoni, and those illiterate, polygamist, lazy sheikhs who pay you to write this drivel, are in no position to judge!

Andrew, I have a few questions for you:

1. You claim that the deaths of Palestinian civilians via F16s are "accidental". If an F16 drops a bomb on an apartment building and kills numerous civilians, or if artillery shells are fired at a refugee camp with shells designed to detonate above ground and spray shrapnel, and so forth, and so on, are you saying that nobody in the military carrying out the shelling has any inkling that innocents will be killed?

2. You claim, and I agree, that the deliberate targeting of civilians as a matter of policy is wrong, calling it "dark ages-like behavior". What, then, would you call the bombing by the Allies in WWII of Dresden, along with every major (and many minor) Japanese city? What would you call Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Were those actions, all of which invloved the deliberate, systemic targeting of civilians, done in the dark ages, Andrew?

Here's another bit of history for you, Andrew: the King David hotel in Jerusalem was blown up in 1946 by the Irgun. There were 91 people killed. All were civilians. You can read about it at wikipedia.

This attack was ordered by Menachen Begin. You might remember him if you know a bit of history, Andrew: he went on to become Israel's Prime Minister from 1977-1983.

Was this done in the dark ages, Andrew?

The fact is that in this fight, both sides have lots of deliberately drawn civilian blood on their hands.

The other fact is that you live in a country that has deliberately caused the death of far more civilians than the terrorists being discussed here. Which certainly in no way justifies, condones, or forgives their actions, but does bring to mind the glass houses/stones thing.

the soviet union no longer exists....time to update to reality....

There wasn't a lot of complaining about the "American Empire" when the Soviet Union was swallowing her neighbors.

I am currently reading the book Founding Brothers by Joseph j. Ellis.

During the 1790’s and 1800’s there was a continuous debate between the Federalists (big federal government – John Adams) and the Republicans (small federal government – Thomas Jefferson). They were constantly debating and it was healthy for the country.

The problem now is that both parties are now both big federal government Federalists. Republicans sometimes pretend to be small government but when they get in office they quick switch back to big government.

Ron Paul truly is a small federal government Republican. Ron Paul would provide balance against all the current Federalists.

Dan,

I think this would be a good time to do a general purging of our foreign policy which is based on outdated cold war policies and situations that are no longer applicable and arguably harmful. And they are certainly outrageously expensive.

For example there is no longer a need for US troops in South Korea or Europe. So much of our foreign policy is just on autopilot from 50 years ago.

A vigorous and healthy debate of all these alphabet soup organizations and agencies is actual what we need at this stage. Most politicians are too much cowards to offend any agency or organization. Ron Paul has the courage to start the debate.

Anything that proves essential will be blocked by congress or reinstate with the new administration after Ron Paul’s presidency. But I think we will find that we are better for having swept out the old cob webs.

OK - I agree with questioning all aspects of a candidate; however, calling him a non-isolationist is not accurate....

Withdrawl from managed trade pacts such as NAFTA is a policy that would encourage free trade not dampen it....same for WTO.

There is a difference between managed trade and free trade and Ron Paul is for the latter with all nations.

Reevaluation of our position in the world does not mean withdrawl and a president has to work with the legislature in any such effort.

Speed123,

If Ron Paul were only opposed to preemptive war, which would be at odds with the traditional U.S. posture, that would be one thing. He favors withdrawal from NATO, WTO, NAFTA. He seeks an end to U.S. protection of South Korea and opposes security alliances in general. He favors the closure of overseas bases. He calls for the elimination of foreign aid. That is a neo-isolationist stance no matter how one tries to package it.

Clearly, Ron Paul has the freedom to espouse such positions as he does. However, that freedom does not mean his positions are immune from question, debate or discussion. Indeed, he is a champion of free speech.

Finally, I agree that the neoconservative approach to foreign policy has been a failure. However, rather than calling for a shift in the opposite direction to neo-isolationism, I believe a return to the pragmatic Realism that defined the foreign policy of Presidents Truman through Reagan would be far better.

Don, stop slandering Ron Paul. Taking a stand against PREEMPTIVE war is not isolationism and neither is true free trade with ALL nations (not just the ones the Neo Cons support)

PS -check out meetup.com and the presidential grass root organizers:

Ron Paul: 18,500 volunteers

Obama: 3,000
Hiliary: 700
Mccain:0
Rudy: 0
McRomney: 0

30 million from corporations and foreign lobbies cant by you 18,000 people on the pavement every week.

This is the revolution!

This author needs a one way ticket to Gitmo. She is obviously on the side of our enemies who are at war with us. How come the Washington Post even allows her to post this seditious material on their website I don't even know. I do know that anyone who talks bad about MY country oughta get the heck out. We don't want you!

Don,

It was our direct funding and training of mujahedeen that led to al-Qaeda and thus 9/11.

Former Foreign Secretary and Leader of the House of Commons Robin Cook spoke of al-Qaeda as an unintentional product of Western interests:

“Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by Western security agencies. Throughout the 80s, he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organization would turn its attention to the west.”

The point of all this is that we spend so much of our resources on these outrageous machiavellian plots that more often than not backfire on us. At least since the corrupting of our foreign policy by the Military Industrial Complex since the 1950’s.

I do agree that it was probably useful for us to have a strong military during most of the past 70 years. I just think we really need to tone things down. In fact, we really don’t have much choice at this stage. America is now in major debt and on the verge of bankruptcy with a real threat of sudden collapse of the dollar due to over printing of money to pay for the Iraq war and big government spending from the neo-cons.

Just seems to me that for at least the next four years we would do well to have a real fiscal conservative like Ron Paul to help get our government back into a proper balance. Realistically he wont get all the changes he wants. But having someone to say ‘No’ to the congress’ overspending for a few years would be healthy for our country. Just to help reach a more healthy balance.

Please go get The Pentagon's New Map. Crucial to read that book to understand the US strategy/goals as seen by the powers that be in the pentagon and the white house.
The movie Control Room shoulld help dispel anti-al jazeera fearmongering.
Nemesis is the bes statement of the ron Paul case.

Read these first. Then have at it. Debate is good but simply arguing is simply divisive. Let's look at both sides and try to see the other's perspective. Then a calm debate could be productive.

Silence Dogwood,

There is no certainty that the neo-isolationism espoused by Congressman Ron Paul would have prevented the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Although Osama Bin Laden's "grievances" include what had been a U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia, they also go well beyond "blowback." In his "letter to the American people," he has complained that the U.S. political system by making the Constitution its source of authority runs counter to religion. He has asserted that American culture is corrupt. He has declared that America must ultimately convert to Islam albeit his radical interpretation.

Prior to World War II, the U.S. employed exactly the kind of isolationism that Mr. Paul advocates. It did not keep America from being attacked. It did keep America from "balancing" rising Nazi power e.g., by backing Czechoslovakia or entering into an alliance with France and Britain, and that failure might well have helped fuel the Nazis' appetite for aggression.

Given the historical experience with isolationism, the U.S. would be embarking on a truly hazardous course if it turned to Ron Paul's neo-isolationism.

Interesting article

Somebody said once that "History doens't repeat itself but it rymes nicely". Yes, America is an empire -no like Rome, Spain or Britain but an empire for various particular reasons that have been mentioned in varios blogs before. And as such it would fall followng the laws of history. However, past experiences are just hints of what may happen next. America and the americans have shown before and from other issues that they can learn from their mistakes. History will pove if this will be the case.

But none of us will be here to see that.

Kudos to the Post in sponsoring this forum. I am a very concerned American and it pleases me to see this debate. There was no greater demonstration of Alexis de Toqueville's "tyranny of the majority" than when the leader and other elected representatives of this nation, coupled with the cooperation of corporate media channels, convinced the population of the pressing need to engage in a unilateral military campaign cleverly branded as "Preemptive War Doctrine," which is nicer packaging than what it really is: Unprovoked Invasion of a Sovereign Nation. The first post is from Robert and his arguments are so ignorant and, unfortunately, typical, in many circles. I live in the South, where fundamentalist Christians abound, many of whom have married their faith into their political ideology (invariably Republican). They advocate violence just like the Islamic Fundamentalists (IF). They believe in their moral righteousness, just like the IF. They live in compartmentalized societies (usually suburban sprawl away from Brown peoples) and look down upon other Christian sects, just like the Shiites and Sunni Muslims (sorry for any over-simplification, but you see my point). The only real difference is that Christian Fundamentalist of America are not destitute, desperate, and read to take up arms and die for their causes. Peace.

Ignorant of history, Roman and American, but in perfect lockstep with tabloid thinking, Ms. Andoni offers nothing new to the 24 hr talking head clatter. Were she not in a position to influence, her mindless 'I guesses' could be forgiven. Read a book, better yet read a library full before you open your trap about empire. Keep adding gas to the fire with inflammatory rhetoric like that and 'empire' is exactly what you'll get. And then you will know the meaning of words like empire, Roman...and vassal.

The characterizaion of the oil rich oligarchies as the brave rebels resisting an American empire is sheer invention. We may as well say that pedophiles are not despicable but are bravely resisting the chafing moral rules of society. By hiding behind this idea, the Islamists carve out for themselves a safe haven for the criminality of their governments and the complete moral breakdown of their religion. America is not at all like Rome, it is more like ancient China which became a huge country without much war because it had a culture and a political system which appealed to many people.

I disagree with your assumption that America will inevitably seek to expand in an imperialistic fashion. America has already gone through repeated phases of imperialistic expansion and has moved in decidedly the opposite direction. Though I have no end of criticisms to lay at the feet of the invasion of Iraq for instance it is very obvious that American's do not want to rule this foreign land, we want them to take care of themselves and let us go home. While America might meddle in the affairs of other contries, it is always with a goal towards making the other contries better, not to conquer.

I'm guessing that you have no idea the number and size of permanent bases being built in Iraq and Afghanistan. It may be obvious that "Americans", in the plural sense and not the possessive sense, as a people do not want to rule or occupy Iraq, but the safe money is on the government of the United States having a vested interest in maintaining a presence to ensure the constant flow of oil/natural gas.

And your statement about the US and the goal of making other countries better is a joke as well. We kept a firm and large presence in Germany until we no longer saw a threat from the Soviet Union. We did not, however, have enough faith and confidence in the Germans themselves to thwart a Soviet presence. We don't conquer... We occupy in order to maintain our way of thinking and that the balance of power is always in our favor.

Personally, I see the Saudis at the core of many of our problems in Southwest Asia. Until we hold their feet to the fire and find out exactly how many terrorist/terrorist cells that they are backing, we are just flailing in the quicksand.

The obvious is so hard for some people to see. The United States has been on this course since Korea. But it has evolved from military domination as a goal (now an accepted fait accompli) to economic and political domination.

George Bush is the full flowering of the capitalist movement that has grown in the United States. His administration was willing to immorally invade a country and enforce democracy at the point of a gun. And at the same time allocate oil and economic territory to its corporate allies. No question of morality has been raised by either a compliant congress nor a mainstream press; the only complaint seems to be that the scheme is not working, so we now have to make an adjustment.

All this has taken place with the (mostly) full blessing of the electorate, who now are beginning to stir as the caskets and disabled return. Never mind that another country has been destroyed and its people displaced, killed, or wounded; the prevailing motto has been and will remain - I'm alright, Jack, screw you.

The economy is still in a growth period. The casualties are still minimal. The taxes are still reasonable. We have paid very little for this misadventure to date. But chickens do have a habit of coming home to roost, and the scenario has not played out completely as of yet. I have no idea of the damage that has been done to this country that may surface in the future, but I am sure it will not be insignificant. The threads that have developed over the last few years are coming together to weave a tapestry. And still we have people, many people, who refuse to see.

I probably should have mentioned in my previous post that 9/11 was due in large part to our 50 years of perpetual meddling in the middle east. Not that 9/11 was our fault but it was clearly the result of our being there. If we weren’t there over past 50 years it wouldn’t have happened.

Countries and people that hate the United States hate us because we have been militarily meddling in their affairs (not because we are free and good). In the same way we Americans would be furious if some other country sent troops or setup bases in or near America.

Often times Americans are not even aware of the hatred we are inspiring because the actions are done by CIA or hired mercenaries. This often results in ‘blowback’.

Do a search for “CIA blowback” to learn more…

Thus a non-intervention policy would make us much safer. And we wouldn’t be wasting trillions of dollars on pointless wars.

History does not provide us with the best way to run a country and its international affairs, nor does the author of this article. What does she want?

It’s not our job to police the world.

A non-intervention policy would have prevented 9/11.

A non-intervention policy will prevent a future 9/11.

America must stop being policeman/henchman for the United Nations. The rest of the world will just have to learn how to take care of themselves.

We can have a much more positive influence through free trade and setting a good example of a free democratic moral society by following the advice of our Founding Fathers and the Constitution.

Nobody would have any reason to attack us if we would stop inserting ourselves into everybody else’s wars/troubles. This has worked great for Switzerland who doesn’t have wars or terrorist attacks because they know how to mind their own business. We Americans could learn a lot from them.

We should stop trying to be an Empire and focus on being a Constitutional Republic.

I would be open to the possibility that our meddling might be doing some minor good in the world but unfortunately American foreign policy has been hijacked by the Military Industrial Complex whose goal is perpetual war for their power and greed -- as clearly demonstrated in Iraq and soon Iran. So every time we try to do